Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the October 18th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias, where I take a look at some of the stories involving gun rights and the Second Amendment, as well as how the media reports such.

A perfect example of holding the news media's feet to the fire was started by Cam Edwards when he challenged an appearance by CBS journalist Mike Wallace's at a Brady Bunch sponsored birthday party. That forced a response by CBS in which they promised (sort of) to examine their policies and possibly preventing Wallace from doing reports on gun control in the future. I covered this rather extensively last week and won't repeat myself here. It's interesting, though, that while such some conservative commentators such as Michelle Malkin and then World Net Daily gave attention to the incident, not one single "Main Stream Media" outlet did. They don't like having their warts pointed out.

What does all this prove? Only that the Main Stream Media is certainly on notice that we bloggers notice when things are not right. (You would have thought that CBS News would have been more careful or had more regulation of their employees after the Dan Rather fiasco last year.)

Another example of bias concerns a story I mentioned Saturday about a new law going into effect in Alaska that would insure that local cities could not enact firearm regulations that exceed those of the state, thereby making criminals of normally law-abiding citizens who just happen to be passing through. The AP titled their article, "New Anti-Gun Control Law Set for Alaska." Why didn't they title it, "New Gun-Rights Law..."? The Casper Star-Tribune gave it a more cryptic title, "Alaska anticipates gun law":

JUNEAU, Alaska -- Starting Wednesday, a new anti-gun-control law in Alaska will allow handgun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit in the seven Alaska cities where permits are now required.

Gun owners will be allowed to keep their firearms in their vehicle, even if the car is parked on private property where the owner has a no-gun policy.

And, some police chiefs say, local ordinances that ban guns from public buildings such as city halls will no longer be enforceable.

Alaska's new law forbids municipalities from passing gun laws that are more restrictive than state law.

Note that it's still the same, uncondensed AP story and contains plenty of quotes from two or three Alaskan law enforcement officers who worry, or "anticipate" the new bill:

The part of the law that most concerns Alaska police chiefs is the lifting of bans on guns in public buildings. That could leave government workers inside vulnerable to attack, said Anchorage Police Chief Walter Monegan.

"There are lots of people, myself included, we really value our constitutional rights," Monegan said. "But if we had the same enthusiasm to also support our constitutional responsibilities, then I would be less concerned over this issue."

Across the state in Bethel, Police Chief Ben Dudley said he also is concerned that he will no longer have the option of charging people with entering a municipal building with a weapon. But he's more philosophical on the effects of that city law when it comes to stopping somebody who means to do harm.

"If there were people with bad intentions entering into municipal buildings, the law isn't going to stop those people anyway," Dudley said. "They're going to stick a pistol down their pants anyway."

[...]

[State Rep. ] Chenault said his interpretation of the new law differs. State law now does not specifically prohibit weapons in municipal buildings, but it does in state buildings. If municipalities pass their own weapons bans for public buildings, those laws shouldn't be considered any more restrictive than the state's ban, he said.

And in accordance with federal law, firearms would still be prohibited from federal buildings such as federal courts, Post Offices, etc. As Dudley correctly points out, bad guys aren't going to pay attention to any law banning firearms.

Jetting to the opposite end of the country, I found an interesting Tampa Tribune article on their gun rights bill:

TALLAHASSEE -- A new chapter in the old debate over gun control is starting to unfold in Florida, and part of the story is tucked away in Shari Kotsch's purse.

Kotsch, a Pasco County resident who works from home, decided to apply for a concealed weapons license about six months ago.

"My husband and I both signed up for the class," she said, in part because she always felt like an "easy target" in a world that's "going crazy."

Now, Kotsch takes her pistol everywhere. Her mother and mother-in-law -- both widows -- now carry, too.

Kotsch and her relatives have plenty of company.

Florida has more concealed weapons license holders than Texas, and the Tampa Bay region alone has more than the entire state of California.

It suggests that gun control groups that accuse pro-gun politicians of being stooges for the National Rifle Association are missing a key point: The gun culture isn't just a few gun nuts who read Soldier of Fortune magazine.

According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, there are 354,552 concealed weapons licenses in the state. That means one out of every 49 Floridians has a permit to pack heat.

In California, just one of every 795 citizens has a concealed weapons license; in Texas, one in 95. At the Florida rate, 1,300 fans at a sold-out Bucs game could have more than some cold drinks tucked away in the car.

And keeping a firearm in a vehicle is the focus of proposed legislation that is once again turning national attention on the gun-friendly nature of the Florida Legislature. The bill would guarantee Floridians the right to keep their firearm in their car at work -- overriding some employers' prohibition of guns in their parking lots.

There is some of the usual blather from the Brady Bunch and others about the "Castle Doctrine" law as well as the proposed law allowing employees to keep their firearm locked away in their vehicle but I must say, this article is quite heavy in quotes from our point of view including:

Mark Little, a retired law enforcement officer and employee at Shooting Sports on Dale Mabry Highway, said a gun is not a danger if it is secured in a car at the workplace.

"If someone's intent is to do harm, they are not going to let some stupid law or regulation stop them," Little said.

[...]

Pasco resident Kotsch said not being able to keep a licensed gun in a car at work "kind of defeats the purpose of having the concealed weapons permit."

Exactly. Else, you'd have to leave home without your gun to go to work and then return home again to retrieve it before going out on errands or such.

One thing this story does point out is that -- dispite the predictions of the gun-grabbers -- crime overall is down in Florida with one exception that pushed the figures slightly higher: Forcible rape. It is imperitive that women take advantage of laws in those states that allow concealed carry. Here's another quote:

Pasco County resident Laurel Nash, who got a carry permit about four years ago, said she doesn't go anywhere without her gun and her cell phone.

"I love having my gun with me," said Nash, a widow. "When I go to Tampa at night, I'm coming back late. It's a necessity. Here alone at night, it's a big comfort."

Nash hopes she will never have to use her gun but said that if she's in serious danger, "I sure as heck will."

[...]

Women make up 14 percent of concealed weapons license holders in Florida, according to the most recent statistics. Almost 39 percent of license holders are older than 50.

The problem of overall decreased violent crime but increased rape is mirrored around the nation as a new FBI report indicates:

All major categories of violent crime in the United States declined in 2004, bringing the rates of the most serious offenses, including murders, rapes, robberies and assaults, to a level 32 percent lower than those reported in 1995, the new figures show.

The rate of property crimes -- such as burglary, larceny and auto theft -- declined 2.1 percent as well last year.

The only category of violent crime in which the number of incidents rose was forcible rapes -- to 94,635 in 2004 from 93,883 in 2003, an increase of 0.8 percent. But accounting for an increase in population, the rate of forcible rapes dropped 0.2 percent.

The 523-page FBI Uniform Crime Report is the final compilation and statistical analysis of crime data reported by nearly all state and local law enforcement agencies for 2004.

So while incidents of rape increased, percentage rates decreased. Not nearly enough to satisfy me and again, I say to women, as well as minorities that are frequent targets of hostilities, ARM YOURSELVES! Actually, everyone who is comfortable with defending themselves should because criminals, mutants, fear only one thing: A victim that can fight back.

It appears the House will finally take up the "Protection of Lawful Commerce" bill this week. Because of time constraints it could be they will simply pass the Senate version including a few amendments snuck-in. One of those, requiring that trigger locks be included -- not integrally -- with every gun sale, has some in a lather:

Second-Amendment defenders are urging Congress to defeat an amendment slipped into an otherwise favorable bill that would require licensed gun dealers to supply a trigger lock device with every handgun sold, calling it an effective "gun tax" on every weapon sold.

[...]

"While it is imperative that the Congress pass legislation to protect the firearms industry, this bill should not be used as a vehicle for a misguided gun control proposal," said a GOA dispatch.

The group said House leadership is being pressured to quickly adopt the Senate version of the bill instead of taking up its own bill, which contains no gun control.

The bill went before the Rules Committee yesterday and likely will reach the House floor this week.

Opponents argue the amendment leads gun owners to the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage, which actually would endanger lives by rendering self-defense firearms useless.

"While the amendment does not require that gun owners use trigger locks at this point, it is easy to see how trigger locks, like automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, can quickly become compulsory," said GOA.

The House bill, introduced by Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., could help protect the gun industry, GOA argued, but it would do so without saddling American gun owners with yet another gun control law.

My own feelings are this: Almost every new firearm I've bought in the past ten years already included a trigger-lock, again, not built in except in the case of one Taurus revolver. Most gun makers include a cable lock as standard equipment now. They're cheap and really wouldn't add much (a dollar?) to the cost of used guns sold from dealers. If an amendment such as this is the price to pay for finally getting swift action on the gun maker shield bill, so be it. The President and the Republican Congress are in free-fall at the moment in public opinion polls and it would be nice to get the Act passed and signed into law before Democrats make it a 2006 campaign issue.

However... Of more concern to me is the proposal to "study" armor piercing ammunition, whatever that actually means -- whose armor? What type of armor? Gun Law News says not to worry:

SA1645 only does the following:

The first part simply restates current law: 18 USC 922(a)7 and 8.

The second part of the amendment increases federal penalties for using this ammunition in the commission of a crime.

The third and last part of the amendment requires the AG to conduct a study and issue a report but does not create any new powers that the AG does not already have.
At this point in time, the only power the AG currently has is to declare ammunition as not ‘armor piercing’ because of sporting purposes or industrial purposes as specified in 18 USC 921(a)17.

Analysis:
The worst thing this amendment will do is spend tax payer money. Wording will be selectively chosen by Kennedy to show that Congress should pass one of his 'armor piercing bullet' bans. And that is all.

Frankly, I'd feel a lot better if the House was considering it's own version of the "Lawful Commerce Act..." which had NO amendments.

Naturally I'll be on Cam & Company later today and until then, I thank you for stopping by.

Posted by Jeff Soyer at October 18, 2005 10:09 AM